London Thanks the USAF for Their Support

US Forces Banned From London

Cheers, guys.

Next time you need help invading a country, do let us know.

Maybe, maybe not.

[

](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1690634,00.html)

storm in a teacup methinks. The above quote sounds pretty reasonable to me.

That was on Friday. A spokesman was supporting the order on this mornings Today.

It just stikes me as stupid and insensitive, but hopefully they’ll retract soon.

The only reason most companies weren’t asking staff to come in was because it was not clear what transport would be running. Given that the only practical way to get from Mildenhall or Lakenheath to London is to drive, this can’t have been the primary concern.

And as Ithaka says, the whole situation postdates the quiet Friday.

It’s just Force Protection, man. It’s an Air Force policy that protects our guys AND yours. Unless, of course, you’re certain that they’re all gone, have no interest in targeting US soldiers (now why would they want to do that?) and you’re willing to take the chance that if they are targeting US soldiers they won’t plug a civilian at the same time.

Relax. This will all shake out in a few weeks.

“I mean, you know, we totally stand with you; just not with you with you, if you know what I mean. We’ll stand with you but keep a respectful distance. Like, maybe 30 or 40 kilometres.”

They appear to be targeting us. Several of our civilians have already been “plugged”, as you so delightfully put it.

Whatever. Be as irrationally angry as you like over something you clearly don’t understand.

No, we understand perfectly clear that the targets for attacks in the UK are the general public. The bombs reinforce that. To use last week’s events to argue that there is a specific threat to American troops in the UK makes no sense.

And even if it did, how is the M25 some magic barrier, beyond which the USAF is safe? If there’s a credible threat, then why are they not being restricted to the bases?

I’m not irrational, or even particularly angry.

I am, however, a tad upset.

Sure, you can make an argument that US soldiers might be targeted in London and that it’s best that they “keep out of the way” for a few days.

I just happen to think it’s a dumb argument and sends all the wrong messages - back home to the US, to Londoners, and to the scum who did this. Everyone else is carrying on as normal despite the fact that we have been and remain the targets for this type of terrorism.

But I forget that the US military system is flawless, so I’m probably wrong.

No, what you don’t understand is that the USAF has a clear, long established, and perfectly reasonable plan for Force Protection. That plan is to protect the people of the host country as well as the servicemen and women. In response to something like this it is implemented, and when it shakes out it goes away.

This plan was created in response to abductions, kidnappings, snipings, and bombings that have happened elsewhere. It is not unreasonable to think that the soldiers might be targets of opportunity anywhere, but with an event like this it becomes a better safe than sorry situation.

Don’t take it so personally, and get your knee looked at. It appears to be spasming.

So there’s a clear, established plan…and it’s only being implemented by two bases. Hmmmm.

But we do understand all that.

We just think that in this particular situation it is the wrong plan and the wrong response.

That make any sense to you? Or does your knee jerk too far when anyone dares to criticise the US forces?

Again, be as irrationally angry as you like over something you clearly don’t understand.

Airman Doors, do you have any more specific information on the plan being implemented than we have available to us in the news stories? If not, then your kneejerk defence of it is just as irrational as our kneejerk criticism.

<Zoidberg> Yay! Everybody’s irrational! </zoidberg>

Airman Doors, I find your concern for the safety of US forces and any collateral civilian deaths touching.

Might I suggest there are other parts of the world you could have usefully steered clear of as well?

The plan, based upon local conditions implemented by the area commander, is a blanket proscription of areas pending evaluation of security. He is responsible for each and every one of the people under his command, and he has chosen to be cautious. I don’t know why this is such a big deal to you. I got a friggin’ Force Protection briefing in Puerto Rico, for crying out loud. We were banned from certain areas and specific businesses in San Juan, and with good reason. There were more killings in one week in San Juan than there was in the same week in Baghdad.

Think of it this way: when there’s a car accident they roll fire trucks, even if there’s not a fire. Why? Because a) it’s policy, b) it’s better to be safe than sorry, and c) because you never know. Eventually they button up and go away. This will go away, but until it does it was instituted because of established policy.

As far as irrationality goes, I’ve explained it to you now three times, and yet we still have the conspiracy theory-type comments from the peanut gallery (“So there’s a clear, established plan…and it’s only being implemented by two bases. Hmmmm.”). Hmmmm, indeed. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Any other assholish statements you wish to make? I’ll be here all day, so please, get it all out of your system.